I have read that to have 98 and xp dual booting - or any version of
windows - you install the old then the new. I've also heard of there
being problems with having multiple visible primary partitions.

I currently have XP on an NTFS partition. As an experiment, I tried
installing 98 without first removing XP. It worked. It detected an
NTFS partition, created a new primary FAT32 partition, formatted it,
installed Win 98 on it, and made it active.

So I have 2 visible primary partitions. I choosse which to boot from by
making it active - which can be done through PMagic or Fdisk and maybe
Diskpart.exe in XP

Since that all worked. I tried creating another visible primary
partition - this time in partition magic (with nothing on it), that
worked fine. So now I have 3 primary partitions.

So isn't it strange, that I have had no problems whatsoever with that
method, and yet everybody says to never install 98 after XP.

I'm sure I used to have to make primary partitions hidden, but here
strangely, I seem to be able to have many visible primary partitions.
WHat's the point of making primary partitions hidden if even Win 98SE
can handle it?!

And why all the fuss about having to install the old then the new - 98
then XP?
If I am going against the grain, howcome no damage is being done?

On 29 Dec 2004 11:32:39 -0800, jameshanley39******.co.uk wrote:

>I have read that to have 98 and xp dual booting - or any version of
>windows - you install the old then the new. I've also heard of there
>being problems with having multiple visible primary partitions.
>
>I currently have XP on an NTFS partition. As an experiment, I tried
>installing 98 without first removing XP. It worked. It detected an
>NTFS partition, created a new primary FAT32 partition, formatted it,
>installed Win 98 on it, and made it active.
>
>So I have 2 visible primary partitions. I choosse which to boot from by
>making it active - which can be done through PMagic or Fdisk and maybe
>Diskpart.exe in XP
>
>Since that all worked. I tried creating another visible primary
>partition - this time in partition magic (with nothing on it), that
>worked fine. So now I have 3 primary partitions.
>
>So isn't it strange, that I have had no problems whatsoever with that
>method, and yet everybody says to never install 98 after XP.

The main reason is by doing it the recommended way XP will detect
earlier versions of Win and DOS and install it's own boot manager
allowing you to choose which OS to boot from a simple startup. There
are other ways including the way you have discovered but for
simplicities sake and no frigging around with partition manages the
old first routine is the most straight forward to the uninitiated. I
personally use OS Loader 2000 which copes with multiple partitions and
OS's

>
>I'm sure I used to have to make primary partitions hidden, but here
>strangely, I seem to be able to have many visible primary partitions.
>WHat's the point of making primary partitions hidden if even Win 98SE
>can handle it?!
>
>And why all the fuss about having to install the old then the new - 98
>then XP?

No fuss it just is one of the more straight forward ways of achieving
the desired results especially if you are doing a completely fresh
install of all OS's

>If I am going against the grain, howcome no damage is being done?

No damage should be done so long as the user has a clear idea what is
going on.

On 29 Dec 2004 11:32:39 -0800, jameshanley39******.co.uk wrote:

>I have read that to have 98 and xp dual booting - or any version of
>windows - you install the old then the new. I've also heard of there
>being problems with having multiple visible primary partitions.
>
>I currently have XP on an NTFS partition. As an experiment, I tried
>installing 98 without first removing XP. It worked. It detected an
>NTFS partition, created a new primary FAT32 partition, formatted it,
>installed Win 98 on it, and made it active.
>
>So I have 2 visible primary partitions. I choosse which to boot from by
>making it active - which can be done through PMagic or Fdisk and maybe
>Diskpart.exe in XP
>
>Since that all worked. I tried creating another visible primary
>partition - this time in partition magic (with nothing on it), that
>worked fine. So now I have 3 primary partitions.
>
>So isn't it strange, that I have had no problems whatsoever with that
>method, and yet everybody says to never install 98 after XP.

The main reason is by doing it the recommended way XP will detect
earlier versions of Win and DOS and install it's own boot manager
allowing you to choose which OS to boot from a simple startup. There
are other ways including the way you have discovered but for
simplicities sake and no frigging around with partition manages the
old first routine is the most straight forward to the uninitiated. I
personally use OS Loader 2000 which copes with multiple partitions and
OS's

>
>I'm sure I used to have to make primary partitions hidden, but here
>strangely, I seem to be able to have many visible primary partitions.
>WHat's the point of making primary partitions hidden if even Win 98SE
>can handle it?!
>
>And why all the fuss about having to install the old then the new - 98
>then XP?

No fuss it just is one of the more straight forward ways of achieving
the desired results especially if you are doing a completely fresh
install of all OS's

>If I am going against the grain, howcome no damage is being done?

No damage should be done so long as the user has a clear idea what is
going on.